openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <>
Subject Re: Questions about cutting another snapshot release
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:08:45 GMT

See responses inline...

On Oct 31, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:

> This is probably most directed at Marc since he did the first snapshot
> release, but others may have input as well...
> I'm looking to cut another snapshot release so that we can include the
> updates for the WebSphere ExtendedJTATransaction interface, along  
> with other
> changes that have recently been integrated.  I was looking at what  
> Marc did
> so that I could follow suit, but I have a few questions.
> 1.  Shouldn't the LICENSE.txt file contain the Apache 2.0 License  
> text?  I
> checked a couple of other Apache projects and they include the  
> complete
> Apache license.  We probably should as well, unless there's some  
> rule as to
> what an incubating project should include versus a graduated Apache  
> project.

I think so. Since I added the file, I've gone ahead and updated the  
file to be the Apache 2.0 license test to be in accordance of the  
other places where we list the license. I suspect I must have just  
copied the old license file from some template somewhere.

> 2.  Our HEAD is currently at version 0.9.6.  The only SVN Revision  
> that is
> available (438338) in the repository has version 0.9.0 in the
> pom.xmlfiles.  I thought we had created a
> 0.9.5 at one time, but I can no longer find it.  Anyway, I'm  
> assuming that
> we will want to cut a 0.9.6 version and then HEAD becomes 0.9.7.
> 3.  I'm also assuming that we will want to name this revision  
> something like
> 0.9.6-incubating-SNAPSHOT so that it is easier to identify (rather  
> than
> relying on the SVN revision number).

Well, I think if we cut a "0.9.6-incubating" release, we'll want to  
up the currently checked-in version to be "0.9.7-incubating-SNAPSHOT".

> 4.  Should we just be creating a Tagged version (vs a Branch)?  I  
> believe a
> Tagged version can always be converted into a Branch, if support is
> required, so I would think a Tag should be sufficient.

I think we should tag whenever we make a "release". I don't know  
anything about tagging in svn, but I assume it is just like CVS  
(where you just ascribe an arbitrary text label to a revision  
number). Presumably, we would just tag a "0.9.6-incubating" release  
as: "0.9.6-incubating".

> 5.  Are we making previous build versions available to our  
> "customers"?  I
> see where we are providing nightly builds for the current 0.9.6  
> version, but
> I don't see 0.9.0 or 0.9.5 builds.  If we provide the SVN  
> Revisions, the
> previous versions can always be built if necessary.  Maybe that's
> sufficient.  We also have the maven repository.

I had posted information about the 0.9.0 and 0.9.5 named "releases"  
on the wiki (at ), but  
then I was informed that that might be a little to "official" to make  
available without a vote on the  
list, and then a subsequent approval vote on the list. I started to make a vote last  
week, but there were some valid objections raised, and I've been too  
bogged down with other things to make any progress on them.

Also, do note that I am building and uploading a snapshot release to 
openjpa/openjpa-project/0.9.6-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ every night from  
my laptop, so any improvements you make should be available in  
snapshot form (I wish this were done via a more official process, but  
I haven't been able to find any information about an Apache  
infrastructure for this sort of thing). I do agree that we should  
have a stable, non "SNAPSHOT" release that people can start relying on.

> Once we get these incubation release steps repeatable, then a wiki  
> page
> would probably be worthwhile.

Definitely. This has been on my TODO list for a couple weeks ... I'll  
try to get something started today. I'm currently dealing with the  
headache of getting a GPG signature for the release automated as part  
of the release process (which seems to be required, according to 
msg00921.html ).

> I currently don't seem to have update access
> to the cwiki, but that can be resolved.
> Anything else I am forgetting?
> Thanks,
> Kevin

View raw message